smartcybers786@gmail.com 
#harsh #politicians #Political #Economy
It is often said that all of Pakistan’s problems can be traced back to the poor policies and selfishness of its politicians. It is a common belief that the downfall of the country is mainly the result of corrupt elected leaders who are only interested in personal gain rather than the good of the nation.
“Politicians come and go, but the problems remain,” many say, conveying a sense of a never-ending cycle of failure and despair. This has become the default narrative, repeated so often that it has become a widely accepted truth. However, a closer look reveals another story that challenges conventional wisdom and calls for a rethinking of how responsibility should be assigned.
A careful examination of Pakistan’s history reveals that elected leaders have their shortcomings, but the trajectory of the country’s policy decisions, both foreign and domestic, was largely shaped by an unelected civil-military oligarchy. “The state is not a government, it’s a deep state,” as some analysts call it, suggesting that power often remains out of the hands of those who win elections. This assertion becomes particularly pertinent when one examines the key decisions that determine the direction of Pakistan’s development and challenges.
Consider some important decisions of politically elected governments. There have been three major initiatives that have had a lasting impact on the country. Each of them was initiated, debated and carried out by popular political leaders.
The first and most important of these was the adoption of the 1973 Constitution which established the basic legal framework for Pakistan’s democracy. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, as the head of the People’s Party, took forward this historic initiative. “We will write our own destiny,” Bhutto declared, emphasizing that this was not just a matter of political deal-making but an opportunity to finally establish a legal and political system that belonged to the people of Pakistan.
The constitution, while incomplete and subject to challenge throughout its history, proved to be an important milestone in the country’s political evolution. This historical document has been twisted and distorted by the power elite, more so by popularly elected politicians. The Eighth Amendment is an important issue.
The second major decision was the nationalization program. This included the nationalization of major industries, banks, insurance companies and some educational institutions. Bhutto’s vision was to create an egalitarian economy where resources were in the hands of the state. Its aim was to remove economic disparity.
Critics of the move often say that nationalization stunted growth and created inefficiencies. However, the main objective was to tackle deep-rooted socio-economic inequality. “The idea was not just economic redistribution, but social justice,” say his supporters. This policy was in line with Bhutto’s socialist leanings.
Fast forward to the 1990s: Benazir Bhutto’s government took the bold step of introducing Independent Power Producers (IPPs) to meet the growing demand for electricity. It was an attempt to address one of the country’s most pressing needs. Benazir emphasized the importance of energy infrastructure in promoting development, remarking that “a nation without power is without a future.” The policy would eventually be expanded by successive governments.
One cannot claim that politicians have been flawless or that their actions have had no significant impact. However, to blame them alone for what has happened is to ignore the role of those who work behind the scenes.
Over time, these IPPs became a massive drain on resources with long-term economic consequences. That the policy designed to meet Pakistan’s energy needs ultimately became a source of significant economic burden illustrates the complexity of political decision-making and the difficulty of long-term planning in a highly volatile environment.
An interesting aspect of Pakistan’s political history is that while these important decisions were taken by elected governments, much of the policy-making, including in areas such as foreign relations, security and political management, was influenced by the establishment. The so-called “deep state”, often at odds with the political leadership, played a dominant role in shaping the country’s direction.
For example, when one considers Pakistan’s foreign policy, it is clear that decisions about the country’s relations with its allies, particularly the United States, and with neighboring India are often made directly by elected leaders. They were done without pit. The same can be said about the Afghan policy. Dealing with major conflicts and responding to regional tensions was largely the purview of establishment strategic planners.
While politicians are often blamed for Pakistan’s economic and social stagnation, the establishment’s control over key areas such as defense and intelligence, and its ability to influence – even outright dictate – policy, is often overlooked in mainstream discussions. At times, it has been free to pursue its goals, leaving elected governments to live up to the consequences. It is a lingering realization that the political leadership, despite enjoying popular support, operates within a framework set by the establishment oligarchy.
Are we being tough on our politicians? Are they alone responsible for the situation we find ourselves in? Much of the policymaking, especially in areas that have led to both successes and failures, seems to have been done by those with power outside the ballot box.
The major political decisions—which shaped Pakistan’s constitutional structure, its approach to nationalization, and its energy policies—came from popularly elected leaders. However, major changes in foreign policy and domestic governance were, more often than not, made by establishment elites. These two forces are working in parallel, often pulling the country in different directions.
The role of the establishment, particularly in shaping Pakistan’s foreign policy, has been central to shaping the country’s external image and determining its alliances, leading to some domestic policy challenges.
Of course there is no easy answer. The political landscape has long been dominated by power struggles between popular leaders and the establishment. Both have had their share of failures and successes. In the words of Benazir Bhutto, “Politics is the art of the possible.” It is in this ever-changing space that we must recognize that the story is more complex than it is often presented. When the opportunity arose, politicians made significant reforms. Often, their efforts have been opposed and undermined by forces beyond their control.
This is not to say that politicians have been flawless or that their actions have had no significant impact. However, to blame them alone for everything that has gone wrong is to ignore the influence of those who work behind the scenes.
The author is a professor in the Faculty of Liberal Arts at Beacon House National University, Lahore.
